Sports & Pastimes.

Matamata Record, Volume XVI, Issue 1443, 20 July 1933, Page 8

Sports & Pastimes.

down at critical moments, and this was a factor which contributed largely to their defeat. Matamata were superior in actual hooking, but there the advantage ended, for there was little between the packs in other departments of play.

Lynch was the best back on the field, his handling and kicking being very clean. He made a very fine opening for his side’s first try, running strongly and timing his pass to Gill in good style when a less unselfish player might have been tempted to go further on his own. Hughes seconded Lynch’s efforts in good style and possibly fielded the greasy ball on defence more often than any other player. His exhibition in this direction was outstanding, and he also stood out with the length of his kicking, which was not merely devoted to punting high, as so many defenders do.

Kirk, at fullback, also shaped well, and if his exhibition was not as polished as the other two, he generally did all that was required of him and got his side out of many difficulties. The wing men, Gill and Newsome, were also sound, as was V. Sharpe, who played a kind of rover’s game at five-eighths. Elliott, at halfback, whipped the ball out when he could and was superior in'this direction to Dobson, the third grade player, who was his vis-a-vis. 1 •- Litchwark stood out amongst the forwards, being ever on the ball, and the whole pack followed his lead in energetic style, even if their concerted movements were not always finalised as well as might be. For Matamata, Lowry, E. Malligan and Fussey all did good work amongst the backs as individuals, but there was a lack of combination and anticipation amongst the others which spoiled their efforts. The forwards also played patchily, and there was a lack of cohesion which proved a weakness at critical moments. Delaney, a junior, played a solid game, and this lad, who has Weight and height in his favour, should prove a great forward next year. j

Fitzgerald infused dash into the play of the pack, and is better suited to forward play than as custodian. Howard shone out in spasms, while Douglas hooked well. The pack as a whole were slightly superior to Wardville, but their efforts were nullified in the manner previously indicated,. MATAMATA UNION. The weekly meeting of the management committee of the Matamata Rugby Union was attended on Tuesday by Messrs. J. E. Cummings (chairman), W. D. L. MacDonald, J. R. Whelan, P. Cotter, J. E.’Barker, D. Morrow and C. E. Barry (secretary).

Referee for Cucksey Cup Match. The Waipa Union advised that Mr. W. Kuhtz had been selected by them to referee the Cucksey Cup match on Saturday. Cambridge Matches.

The Cambridge Union wrote advising that its third grade representative team would play the challenge for the Cucksey Cup on August 12. The letter asked that the Matamata junior representatives travel to Cambridge on July 22 if this date did not clash with a Boyce Cup fixture.

On the motion of the chairman, it was decided to reply regretting that it was impossible to send a team over at present, but an effort would be made to do so later in the season.

Te Puke Request. The secretary of the Te Puke ' Maori Rugby Football Club, Mr. Pat Wihapi, wrote asking for particulars of the Omeka challenge cup, as his club wished to enter a challenge. Particulars to be supplied. Manager. Mr. P. Laurie was appointed manager of the third grade representatives to meet Waipa. Ratana Cup. Mr. W. Henare attended the meeting and advised that it had been decided to entertain the Thames team in Matamata instead of at Te Poi. Challenges for the cup had been received from Otorohanga and Te Kuiti, and these would be j played as early as possible, provided the cup was still held. | The committee agreed to the J arrangements made for the Thames j match, the gate to be on a 50-50 basis of the net proceeds.

HIGH SCHOOL MATCHES- \

Clash With-Union.

May Have to Withdraw.

The difficulty of fitting in interschool matches with the official programme of a Rugby Union was onceagain brought to notice when .Mr. J. R. Whelan wrote to the Matamata. Rugby Union asking for permission for the High School to play TeAroha District High School on urday morning. Vj* The chairman intimated that permission would be granted subject to the union having .first call on any boys needed for a repi-esentative fixture. Those selected could notplay for the school on that day. Mr. Whelan thought that was pretty hard on the High /School. Right through the year the boys had played a morning game, when necessary, and \then fulfilled their unionfixtures in the afternoon. So far as: the school was concerned the interschool fixtures were more importantHe knew the union’s point of view~ and its power, and just put the matter forward for discussion. The chairman said that as Saturday’s fixture was a challenge cup match the union should -field its strongest team. * Mr. Whelan said that he could see that they were- getting into the position in which the school would lhave to pull, out of one or the other. The school had lost several matches through fielding a tired team in the' afternoons. They might have been runners-up in their competition but they were not. worrying* about that. They played about six. inter-school matches in the season. Mr. J. E. Barker thought the solution was for the school to- play its school matches in the early partj of the season, and then followwith the knock-out competition under the union. The chairman thought that would hardly be in order. After some discussion the chairman moved that permission be granted for the High School to play against Te Aroha provided players selected for the third grade representative team did not play for the in the morning.

Mr. D. Morrow seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.

DRAW FOR THE PEACE CUP.

July 22. —Morrinsville v. Paeroa. August s.—Holders v. winners of Thames-Te Aroha game. <' August 19.—Holders v. winners lApt Hamilton-Taupiri game. September 2.— Holders v. winners of Rotorua-Putaruru game. September 9. —Holders v. Waipa. September 23.—Holders v. Matamata. September 30— Holders v. Maniapoto. !. HOLDERS OF THE PEACE CUP--1920 — Thames. -• . 1921 — Thames. , ; 1922 — Thames. 1923 — Hamilton. | 1924 Hamilton. tV <; 1925 Thames. i 1926.—Thames. [ 1927 — Hamilton. 1928 Morrinsville. j ■ 1929 Hamilton. 1930 — Hamilton. 1931 Matamata. ■ 1932 — Morrinsville. [

REFEREES APPOINTED* | For Finlay Cup Games. Referees have been appointed foJT Finlay Cup matches as follow: July 29.—Morrinsville v. at Putaruru, Mr. W. D. L. Mac* ' Donald (Matamata); Matamata V* Rotorua, at Matamata, Mr. Louden,' (Putaruru). August 12.—Morrinsville v. Matamata, at Matamata, Mr. S. E. SenioU (Hamilton); Putaruru v. Rotorua, a]& Rotorua, Mr. Wrathall (Matamata)]* Mr. B. Chapman (Morrinsville)] will referee the Hamilton-CambridgO match. i

Football.

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Finlay Cup Match. Matamata Beat Putaruru. (By “Lineout.”) As the Finlay Cup game, Putaruru v. Matamata, went the score of 11 —3 in favour of the latter was not over-flattering Putaruru. Except for the goal kicked by Carroll, which was disallowed, Matamata got all the points they were entitled to, whereas Putaruru might have got a couple of tries in the first twenty minutes. As serious contenders for the Finlay Cup championship, and the Peace Cup, Matamata gave an unconvincing display. Admittedly the forwards were up against a very fair pack. They got the ball, however, and gave the backs any amount of chances, which were not availed of. There was a weakness behind the scrum, despite the fact that the halfback played fairly deep. At times he missed the ball altogether, and at others he was slow in gathering. However, when he did get it away the other backs, with the exception of Carroll, showed lack of enterprise and used the line to the fullest advantage. Playing with the wind and with eleven points in. their favour the impression was given that they lacked the confidence to play as a combined attacking force. In defence they were solid, particularly Inman and Carroll. The latter was the outstanding back on the field. Maybe the absence of Solomon and Horsley made a difference, and these remarks can only be applied to Saturday’s game as it was played. Quite apart from the backs, it did not seem that Matamata had yet acquired a pack which is likely to hold its own in the bigger matches. They certainly got the ball, but in the tight forward work they were more than held by Putaruru. The experience of Ensor and -Story stood Matamata in good stead, and these two were called upon for great efforts, and did not flin<*h. W. H. Carlson was valuable in the loose and lineouts.

Putaruru played five new men from Taupo, one of whom, Wickcliffe, is a former Canterbury College boy, who was thought a great deal of as a forward in the south. He played fullback' on Saturday, and gave a sound display of tackling and kicking, but was caught out of position several times and was not backed up. Garlick, another Taupo back, from whom much was expected did not appeal. Maybe the strangeness of his fellow backs affected him. The threequarter J. Reid, however, created a very favourable impression, and should be an acquisition to the Putaruru representative team. Dunstan at half played a very solid game, and shared honours with Reid in being the most valuable backs for their team.

The honours of the day went to the Putaruru forwards, who played unceasingly hard football. Had they got any attacking support from their backs they might have put themselves >in an unassailable position in the first half of the game. While the pack was not brilliant, it contained a lot of grafters who stuck to their /job throughout. C. Fraser, N. Young and Staples were outstanding. Young, however, rather dimmed his good play by several times trying to pick up the ball when he should have kept it at toe, and by his blind pass back which ultimately led to Matamata obtaining five points. Taken on the whole the team gave promise of improving as the games go on, but as yet lacks a good leader.

Roigard Cup Match.

Matamata v. Wardville.

(By “Crossbar.”) The game between Matamata and Wardville was always interesting, and the latter team owe their victory to the outstanding manner in which their backs fielded the greasy ball on defence. Territorially there was not a great deal of difference between the teams, and Matamata showed up in attacking rushes as well as did the victors. There was a lack of certainty amongst their backs, however, which let the side